Mobil 1, esters, and cleaning

[Sin City]

I believe GeorgeCLS. Sometimes it is possible to make a better product that is less expensive to produce. In my opinion Amsoil makes a better oil but it is also more expensive and harder to find. If you live in North America and want an OTC 100% synthetic oil the best choice is Mobil 1. At least thats my opinion.

I would like to thank George for all the valuable info on Mobil 1 that he has shared with us.

[ March 20, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Sin City ]

 

[buster]

quote:

---

In my opinion Amsoil makes a better oil but it is also more expensive and harder to find. If you live in North America and want an OTC 100% synthetic oil the best choice is Mobil 1. At least thats my opinion.

---

I agree with your opinion entirely.

 

[TooSlick]

If you want to clean up a dirty engine, using AutoRX is MUCH more effective than trying to do it using the small amount of esters in a synthetic oil. Once you have a clean engine, then using a synthetic can help to keep it quite clean. The esters that are blended into synthetic basestocks are really there for different purposes (balancing seal swell, improving additive solubility, etc)

The esters in AutoRX are formulated for their cleaning a dispersing properties ...they are very specific types of chemistries.

TooSlick

 

[Jay]

Maybe now would be a good time to open the PAO vs ester debate again. I suggested a couple of times before that esters absorb more water than PAO or mineral oil and I was accused of spreading old wives tales by someone who knows a lot more about oil than I do. Molakule says esters don't abosorb more water with proper additization.

Esters have the image on this board of being superior to PAO for automotive use. Oils with high percentages of esters are more highly regarded than oils with low percentages and oils that have pure ester formulations the highest of all. So what is the shining achievement of a pure PAO formulation?

 

[jjbula]

Thank you for the words of wisdom Molakule.

George,

Can you give us any further guidance on what is holding the additives (if not an ester)?

I repeat my question earlier in the thread...Is it a Group I or Group II oil??

Because, if not, you'll have to explain what is holding the additives.

 

[MolaKule]

G-Man: "This is totally bogus. I've been looking at Mobil MSDS's for over two years and they have NEVER given a breakdown of the base oil blend. The only chemical breakdown they give is of the additives. For the base oil, the Mobil 1 MSDS has always simply said "synthetic hydrocarbons" as it does now. (Go to the Mobil 1 web site and take a look.) Take a look at the Delvac 1 MSDS. It doesn't say anything about esters either (and it never has), but does anyone SERIOUSLY doubt that Delvac 1 has esters in it?"

I agree.

As I have stated before, the MSDS' never show all of the components of the base oil and additive package.

Having said that, Mobil's modern full synth formulations (both engine oil and gear oils) DO contain esters, TME or TrimethylEthylene; you have to go to their chemistry papers and read between the lines.

A PAO base itself could not have good additive miscibility; some type of ester has to be present for additive miscibility and seal swell.

In addition, esters help increase thermal stability, VI, cleanliness, and lower pour point. Esters also add to the FM capabilities of the PAO.

There are no negative aspects of esters as to being hygroscopic in formulation. That comment may have been true in 1965, but not today.

Take this situation: I have 5 kg of pentaerithyritol; it is in a resinous or crystal (powder) form. If I take the lid off and expose it to air, it will absorb moisture, BUT ONLY IN THIS FORM.

When I solve it in ethanol or other solvent it becomes a fully funtional ester ready for additives. I can leave the ester by itself open to the air and it will not absorb water.

[ March 21, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
Having said that, Mobil's modern full synth formulations (both engine oil and gear oils) DO contain esters, TME or TrimethylEthylene; you have to go to their chemistry papers and read between the lines.

A PAO base itself could not have good additive miscibility; some type of ester has to be present for additive miscibility and seal swell.

In addition, esters help increase thermal stability, VI, cleanliness, and lower pour point. Esters also add to the FM capabilities of the PAO.

There are no negative aspects of esters as to being hygroscopic in formulation. That comment may have been true in 1965, but not today.

---

MK, thanks for setting the record straight. I was a bit surprised at how readily most people seemed to just accept what was being said. There are some things that are just too far "out there" to be believed (no matter who posts them, and not matter what his supposed credentials are). That Mobil 1 contains no esters is one of those things.

 

[Drstressor]

From a chemical perspective, it is not difficult to derivatize the alpha-carbon of a PAO molecule prior to the hydrogen treatment step. I have always wondered why various polar POA derivatives have not been substituted for ester-based components in synthetic engine oils to improve additive solvency. As additives for conventional PAO bases stock, polar POA derivatives should have very interesting tribological properties including friction modification. Always assumed that it was just a matter of relative cost and the difficulty of developing a controlled synthesis given the large number of different linear and branched isomeric structures that are present. Maybe Mobil has taken this approach? I didn't mean to sound like I doubted George's statement. I was just looking for clarification.

 

[MolaKule]

I think what you and George may be alluding to (and correct me if I misinterpreted) are lubricating products called, "co-oligomers." German patents 4025492 and 4025494 (1992) discuss a process whereby PAO's and Methacrylates are combined to produce these co-oligomers.

These co-oligomers are 40-600 cSt (100 C) fluids that can provide certain advantages to PAO/ester base fluids.

"When blended with PAO/ester, ester oil, or mineral oils, the co-oligomers showed the expected advantages...Because of the wide viscosity range of the co-oligomers themselves, a wide range of viscosities can be adjusted WITHOUT any high molecular-weight [VII's] substance which might cause shear problems. Because of the combination of polar and nonpolar structures in the molecule, there are no miscibility problems with the base fluid components. In addition, the solvent capacity towards all kinds of of additives is good...These co-oligomer blends show high VI values and very good low temperature viscosities...Mixtures of alkyl methacrylate/olefin co-oligomers with low viscosity fluids have high VI values and excellent low temperature properties, which ought to be of advantage in gear oil and engine oil formulations."

Further noted is that these co-oligomer blends have high shear resistance.

However, none of the Exxon/Mobil papers have ever discussed these co-oligomers blends, and have rather discussed advanced POA's with newly developed TME or Trimethylol Ethane esters, as comprising a better engine oil than the old TriSyn formula with Trimethyl Propane (TMP), PAO, and C810 acids derived from coconut oils.

[ March 23, 2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[Drstressor]

All of the SAE Technical Papers pubished by the Mobil Technology Company that I have seen refer to products that have already been in the market place for some time. Have you seen anything recent that refers to the SS formulation?

 

[YZF150]

MK, what is the relative cost to produce such molecules?

 

[MolaKule]

Drstressor,

The later information comes from papers and patents. The paper was the Feb. 2001 write-up in Lubrication Engineering, "High Stability Esters for Synthetic Lubricant Applications." The paper is mostly a discussion of the chemistry of various esters and especially the TME ester.

The paper's key subject area seems to be the enhanced thermal stability, the reduction of viscosity growth, and the need for longer drain intervals that this ester can provide.

There are seven Exxon/Mobil patents from the period 1995 to 1998 relating to these new esters.

YZF150,

No estimate of actual costs from the paper and patents (different paper and patents from discussion above). The process does appear to add more complexity to the creation of these fluids, so I would say these co-oligomers would cost somewhere between the PAO and Esters.

Edit: Keep in view that these co-oligomers are high viscosity fluids. They could only be used as base oils in Gear and Industrial Lubes.

For engine oils, they would be used to enhance the base oil's capbilities, which of course, is the definition of "additive."

[ March 23, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[Fillherup]

When I noticed that the SS low temps specs were higher that then the prior Trisys Mobil1, I did a seat of the pants low temp test. I had done this for the old Trisys and for at least -10f the 5W-30 was so good, that I used it instead of the 0W-30.

But for the SS, I am now using 0W-30 to get similar performance to the older 5-30. The SS 5W-30 is noticeably thicker than the older 5W-30. I just assumed the SS 'magic PAO'. Now it seems it may have been the removal of esters or some combo of the two.

BTW, I did this test in 1996 with several synthetics and dino oils. At that time, the dino oils were poor compared to the Mobil1. Now some of the dino oils looks pretty good. Still not as good as Mobil1, but they seem a lot closer. as I recall. At higer temps, say around 20F, the difference is very little.

[ March 23, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Fillherup ]

 

[Drstressor]

Let's see now, Supersyn is marketed as a PAO based anti-wear technology. Straight PAO is a pretty poor boundary or extreme pressure lubricant. Supersyn technology must be based on a high viscosity polymer since the low temp specs of the new M1 are not as good as the older versions.

Sort of sounds like the type of co-polymer additive we are discussing. We will probably never figure this out until Mobil publishes a paper on the stuff. Probably with a very generic description of the chemistry.

 

[Bror Jace]

George can you point to any info (link, etc ...) which suggests that esters have been entirely removed from current Mobil 1 formulas?

I don't believe you made that up, but like a lot of people here I find it difficult to accept on one person's word alone.

--- Bror Jace

 

[MolaKule]

The paper I mentioned is only two years old, and the usual fare is that papers are written as an introduction to new materials and processes that will be used in future products.

The paper, as I stated, also discusses the older TriSyn technology and then introduces new discoveries, and then implies these new discoveries will be used in future products. The implication, at least to me, is that these new TME esters would be used with their advanced PAO technology.

In discussions with other people in the industry, no one seems to have any knowledge that the co-oligimers I discussed have ever been used in any products since 1992. I only introduced the co-oligomer technology to clarify the present discussion. I personally do not believe the co-oligomer technology is being used at the present time in Mobil 1-type products.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:
Someone said the magic word.. "Cost"... For years it had been a goal to eliminate the high cost ester component for a lower cost component which would yield equal or better results. There are no "papers" or 'rest of the story' on this aspect as it is all new technology which is not being discussed or acknowledged by anyone. And actually other than for discussion purposes, the elimination of ester component has no impct (other than raising pour point somewhat) and in fact the current Mobil 1 performance is equal to/better than every aspect of the ester component Mobil 1.
George

---

Uh-huh...

 

[MolaKule]

George,

What is this much touted component that has replaced esters, in your view; additive, co-oligomer...?

Does that mean the above referenced paper was a smokescreen? Did the authors, in this paper, spend 120 hours cooking up a scenario to just confuse the chemists out there who were academically interest in Exxon's next technology step?

What in the above paper do you find not to be relevant, incorrect, or not up to date?

[ March 24, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[buster]

Isn't there away through analysis of some sort to find out what is really in the new M1 SS?

 

[MolaKule]

Yes, one can analyze it via "Field desorption mass spectrophotometry" or FD-MS, or one can use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) techniques, both very expensive and upwards of $300.00.